Allowed

Pankaj @ Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2018BAIL/14391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application filed by Pankaj @ Sandeep accused in an sexual offence case. It held that the applicant has made out a case for bail considering the nature of offence, evidence and complicity of accused. Bail was granted with strict conditions to prevent abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with strict conditions to prevent abuse of liberty and ensure attendance at trial proceedings.

Pankaj @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14391 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj @ Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Srivastava,Ashish Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava and Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that according to the text of the FIR, the relationship between the applicant and the alleged victim is of Devar Bhabhi (brother-inlaw and sister-in-law) respectively and the role attributed to the applicant is of attempt to outrage the modesty of the alleged victim. From the role attributed to the applicant in the FIR itself does not fall into the ambit envisaged under section 376 IPC. It has lastly been urged that the applicant is in jail since 26.11.2017, having no criminal antecedents to his credit. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶8

Let the applicant Pankaj @ Sandeep, involved in Case Crime No. 552 of 2017, under sections 376, 511, 354 and 506 IPC, P.S. Rura, District Kanpur Dehat be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶9

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶10

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶11

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN

¶12

SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶13

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶15

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 4.5.2018

¶16

shailesh

Pankaj @ Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj @ Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Rais Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Raisa Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vaseer Vs State of U.P.